fs_list

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a non-obvious behavior: large generated directories are skipped during recursive listing. It doesn't explain how 'large' is defined, what happens on truncation, or error behavior, so it adds some value but leaves gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two compact sentences with no waste. The skip behavior is a bit under-specified rather than verbose, so conciseness is fine.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

A list tool with 5 params, 20% schema coverage, a nested agent object, and no output schema. The description omits return shape, pagination/truncation behavior via maxEntries, maxDepth semantics, and the agent param entirely, leaving the agent under-informed for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 20%, leaving maxDepth, recursive, maxEntries, and path undocumented in the schema. The description mentions recursive listing in passing but doesn't explain maxDepth, maxEntries, defaults, or the agent binding parameter, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a clear verb (list) and resource (files and directories) scoped to an allowed root. It distinguishes from siblings like fs_read and fs_search reasonably, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with process_list or project_snapshot.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. The agent must infer that this lists directory contents versus fs_search which likely searches by criteria, but nothing in the description says so.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.